TB7-21870

TB7-21870

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Co-Appellant gave materially inconsistent evidence about when her employment began (an eleven‑month discrepancy central to the persecution timeline) and offered implausible explanations for the tax-letter; those credibility findings were reasonably open to the RPD, no new evidence was filed, the request for an oral hearing was denied, and therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Citation
TB7-21870
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Oral Hearing Request, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Oral Hearing Request Standard of Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (reasons and Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should grant an oral hearing when no new evidence is filed
  2. 2 Whether the RPD erred in its credibility findings regarding the Co-Appellant's employment history
  3. 3 Whether the Co-Appellant's inconsistencies and documentary evidence undermine the refugee claim

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD confirmed the RPD because the Co-Appellant gave materially inconsistent evidence about when her employment began (an eleven‑month discrepancy central to the persecution timeline) and offered implausible explanations for the tax-letter; those credibility findings were reasonably open to the RPD, no new evidence was filed, the request for an oral hearing was denied, and therefore the Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; RAD confirms RPD decision that Appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision of the Refugee Protection Division confirmed pursuant to paragraph 111(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.